Thursday, 30 May 2013

Marriage is necessary because it protects both the individual as well as society. It protects them from economic hardship as resources are shared. It protects people when sick as others can care for them. It protects people from loneliness as other people live in the same house. It protects people from a world that can be very harsh as it allows people to form close emotional bonds that people want to last for life.

In theory these things can happen outside of marriage, but they don't tend to. Instead people look after themselves because there is no guarantee or obligation on the others part to return the good deed. That is not to say that marriage is perfect, it is not. It is a human institution which means that it is filled with human failings. If marriage was only about human failings it would have died a natural death millenia ago. But marriage has not ended, in recent times it has progressively been distorted until it has started to lose it's shape, in the hope that it no longer fits us.

But let us look at the alternative. The alternative is a life of singles and into this environment will come children. Not as something unusual but as the new normal. But who benefits from such a society?

Single Mothers: Are they the winners in such a society? They get to make all the decisions themselves with no assistance, they must either work and leave their children in someone else's care or they must rely on the Government. They cannot rely on anyone else to help them care for their children. The best that most can hope for is a series of short term relationships with periods of loneliness when there is no man in their life. For some this may be the ideal life, how many could that really be?

Single Men: Are they the winners in such a society? While they may be biological Fathers they are not in the home, they are more like Uncles. They have no regular relationship with a women, while still having the very worst aspects of a relationship. There is no companionship or comfort, only problems. Financial, assess to their own child, assess to step-children, trying to form a relationship with that child and never knowing when it will be forced to stop. Is being a Father fashionable this year or is it unfashionable, it will make a big difference. For most men constantly switching your emotions on and off is too hard and they simply stop seeing their children. For some this may be the ideal life, how many could that really be?

The Children: Are they the winners in such a society? When marriage is regarded as obsolete then children will grow up in an environment where their mother makes all of the important decisions and all of their friends mothers make the decisions. An environment where only the feminine will have any import. Where will that leave boys and girls? For children it will seem normal, they have no other experience to compare it too. But what child doesn't worry about what will happen to them if something happens to their parents. When they only have one how much more acute is that fear. How confusing is it when every one of your brothers and sisters has a different Father. For some this may be the ideal life, how many could that really be?

None of these people would win in such a society, while some aspects may suit at particular times, over time it is clear that this is a very unstable model. So who would win?

There would be two big winners, the first is Government, with the family so weak and constantly involved in disputes the role of the Government must be large. For those who believe in big Government, whatever ideology they believe, will see a very positive force in play. They will look for even more Government to expand solutions to the very problems their ideas have created. For those more career-minded, more Government jobs will provide them with advancement and benefits.

Who else will benefit? The users and abusers will have a field day. Who am I talking about, I'm talking about those great moral vacuums who are the greatest of friends/lovers until the money runs dry, until times get tough, until you need the support you've been providing them. Those who get the greatest of joy from taking and not from giving. Those who believe in free-love but not love, those who think that love and lust are the same word. Those who seek out the lost, the innocent, the vulnerable, the weak as a source for their own pleasure. For them this society is without equal.

This is the anti-society that Liberalism wants. It devalues both the male and the female, it is inhuman . We can see the benefits of such a society all around us. A world of singles with children as optional extras. A world that many are already seeing as the new normal, the marriage alternative.

Wednesday, 29 May 2013

Self-Regulation
If my brother was to be arrested for murder and I was on his jury, I would find him not guilty. His bloody fingerprints at the murder scene, his confession, even the full page ad's he took out in the newspaper detailing how he committed the crime wouldn't change my verdict. I would remain loyal to my brother just as I would expect in reverse.

You as a neutral observer would be outraged but would you be surprised? I doubt it and here's why.

You would wonder how anybody could think I would give a different verdict. In similar circumstances would you give a guilty verdict, I for one wouldn't count on it. How could justice work if every family got to decide if a family member was guilty or not, if every family got to self-regulate, in short it would not work.

But self-regulation is everywhere, how often do:

Police investigate Police.

Companies get to decide if they are wrong or right when you complain to them.

Government departments investigate themselves.

How about Finance companies being told that they should self-regulate, even after they have proven that we cannot trust them.

Why is it that self-regulation is regarded as a panacea to the worlds problems? Because it's easy. Nearly no effort required. The Authorities can hide behind self-regulation, how were they to know things were so bad!

They get to hide behind ignorance, self imposed ignorance. They get to help out their friends by saying, sometimes truthfully, "I had no idea that the right hand was doing that, I only look after the left hand". Their ignorance is meant to keep us ignorant. Self-regulation means that no legal authority is watching. Behind closed doors corruption can flourish, bad accounting practices go unreported, unethical and even dangerous activities continue unchallenged.

It is an environment in which the honest man is regarded as a fool.

So what can be done about the problem. In short no one should be allowed to investigate themselves on any serious matter. Everyone should be accountable for their actions and that includes companies and the Government as well as ourselves.

Monday, 27 May 2013

Chivalry
Men should show chivalry to women, but not to feminists. Let them be treated as they think they want, like men. Women do not enjoy being treated as men treat each other.

Chivalry has never been free, it has always come at a price and that price is femininity. Most men are prepared to accept the odd exception they are even prepared for the odd bad day. What they find hard to accept is the argument, everyones equal but women are special.

Friday, 24 May 2013

Recently I signed up to receive a newsletter from the Australian Senator Cori Benardi, he is widely regarded as one of the more Conservative politicians in Australia. But while registering I was asked for my "Gender", My what!

So I wrote off an email which is below and waited a month.

Dear Sir/Madam

I was a bit shocked to see a Conservative organisation using
"gender" instead of the correct term "sex".

I do not have a gender, nor do you, as gender is a social
construct. In short society forces us to become men or women.

Sex is our biology, we are born male or female and grow up
to become men or women respectively.

I know many use the terms interchangeably but it is simply
incorrect. One is biology the other is feminist theory.

I hope you find the time to correct this oversight.

Yours Sincerely

Mark Moncrieff

It seems a month is not enough time to correct this oversight. I have received neither a reply nor a newsletter. It's a shame as Senator Benardi seems to be one of the good guys. But how many times do we see this nonsense, where gender is used as if it's real. It's not real, no one is forced to be a man or a women by society, this is something we can all safely blame on nature.

I also cross out the word on forms and write in the word "sex", it might not change the organisation but it sure makes me feel better. One little way to strike back.

Wednesday, 22 May 2013

The Paradox of the Autonomous Individual and the Expanding Government
Many people have noticed a paradox, if Liberals support the Autonomous Individual how is it that each "reform" seems to give more power to the Government. Here's why:

Liberalism believes that society is made up of autonomous individuals. But everywhere Liberals look are groups of people, in families, in street gangs, in Church congregations, in Nations. People who rely on each other for support and protection. The Liberal doesn't have time for such nonsense after all he knows there is a better organisation for all that, the Government.

The Government can take over the function of them all leaving the autonomous individual free to do what ever it is that autonomous individuals do. This is why Liberalism is so hostile to the family, religion and the nation-state, even to some extent business (Left and Right Liberalism disagree on this point). Because in their heart they believe that Government can do it better, be more efficient and more ethical.

A truly Liberal world, one without Unprincipled Exceptions, would be made up of numerous autonomous individuals and one massive and powerful Government. I for one cannot see how this could ever go wrong!

Monday, 20 May 2013

Multiculturalism
has always been a lie; it pretends that it exists to create a fairer society.
That civil society is racist and that only the Government can make it fairer.
That these poor immigrants need the Governments protection from the average
native born citizen. When of course it is the Governments duty to protect all
equally under the rule of law, not just immigrants. If any of that was true the
arrival of immigrants would stop. Multiculturalism is supposed to mean that
different cultures can live side by side, which of course means that the native
culture is now not the dominate culture to which immigrants assimilate, but
just one amongst a whole range of cultures and non can be considered superior.
But if non is superior all standards are lost because that means there is no longer
any standards. Many have pointed this out before and the argument back is
always the same “that’s racist”. They know they cannot defend multiculturalism
because what it really means is extremely unpopular. What multiculturalism
really means is multi-racial, but they do not say that because they know it
would be like throwing dynamite into a fire. It would expose the anti-white racism
that lies behind their own policies, the policies of multiculturalism and mass
immigration. Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future

Sunday, 19 May 2013

While each
country has a different history and policies I believe some common ideas can be
brought to light.

We all started with Governments that were loyal to the people
of their own country. That a nation existed for the benefit of it’s own people
and that if immigration existed it was mainly to benefit the nation as a whole
and not just the immigrant. But slowly that policy, whether it was official or
unofficial was abandoned. In it’s place was the idea that immigration was both
good for the country as well as the immigrant, the nations existing population was already being neglected. Then came the twin idea’s of fairness and wealth
redistribution, which became the norm. Along with the idea that immigration would be a great
way to both show the world how enlightened the Government was and to help end
unfairness in the world. If it wasn’t possible to make poor countries rich, it
might be possible to make poor immigrants rich or at least richer.

What is also
becoming clear is that when a certain aspect of immigration policy becomes
controversial it is only the tip of the people’s anger over all immigration. It
is standard for any person who questions immigration to be branded a racist,
that you cannot tell the difference between them and Hitler himself, but of
course in the vast majority of cases that is nonsense. The person is not
racist, in many cases the person is not even against immigrants but simply
against a certain Government policy, in this case mass immigration. It is a
mistake to attack a particular people or group and say immigration is good
except for this lot. It is not a particular people or group who are the
problem, the problem is the policy of our Governments. A policy that places
immigrants as being of more value than the nations own people.

Friday, 17 May 2013

In 1973 the
world economy changed, the warning signs had been there but no one really wanted
to notice. Inflation and mass unemployment returned to Australia after being
absent for decades. Both had existed in small measure but now they became
dominate features of the economy. Inflation was brought under control but
unemployment become permanent, it has never left since the early 1970’s. You
would think that good policy would say that as unemployment was high
immigration should stop or at least be curtained. Well for a time it was
curtained but it never stopped and by the late 1970’s it was bigger than it had
been. The big change in the period 1970-2000 was that now immigration from Asia
and Muslim countries grew strongly. What had been small populations of a few
thousand grew into the hundreds of thousands. In 1989 after the Tienanmen
square massacre in China the Australian Government granted nearly 200,000
Chinese citizens in Australia at that time, permanent residence overnight. It
should be pointed out not all stayed and it was popular at the time. But it
gives a measure of the Australian Government’s commitment to immigration.

In 2000 immigration
became a very controversial issue in Australia because of boats arriving from
Indonesia with illegal refugees/asylum seekers. The people were not Indonesians
but mostly from the Middle East. The Australian people have always been
outraged by those who arrive without the Government’s permission, by extension,
the peoples approval. It brought into disrepute Australia’s entire refugee
policy, if refugees can decide for themselves why should we as a nation have a
policy that admits them was the question the majority of Australian’s asked.
There was a very vocal minority that said this was simply racism and that
Australia was a wealthy country and that we should in effect have a policy of
open borders. Immigration or at least refugee immigration was controversial,
even in Parliament. The issue is unsettled, it remains highly controversial
with the most extreme views being expressed on both sides of the often public
debate.

Australia today has nearly 1 in 3 of it's population having been born overseas, in 100 years we have gone from 98% to 66% with no end in sight. Only Luxembourg has a higher immigrant population than Australia. If things continue as they have white Australians will be as much a memory as the white Australia policy itself.

Thursday, 16 May 2013

The
Government at first wanted only British or Irish but the post war refugees in
Europe needed new homes and Australia along with other nations were persuaded
to take in refugees from populations they didn’t really want. It turned out to
be the thin end of the wedge as the numbers of people wanted couldn’t be
supplied from the British Isles, the net widened into Northern Europe into
Eastern Europe and then into Southern Europe. People from all these lands had
settled in Australia before but always in very small numbers compared to the
British. So they assimilated very quickly, but the new numbers were large and
that created worries. People started to complain that the new immigrants were
not British, how could they be loyal to our Constitutional Monarchy when they
had no ethnic ties to it or understanding of it, how could they remain loyal to
Australia’s heritage and traditions when they didn’t share them either. The
Government replied by saying that the numbers were small and that in time they
would assimilate to our way of life.

In 1999 a
referendum was held to decide if Australia should become a Republic, the areas
with the most immigrants voted for a Republic. Those areas predominately
Australian born voted to keep our Constitutional Monarchy, which we thankfully
remain.

The post war years from 1945-1973 were boom years, there were recessions but they were short lived and then the boom times were here again, good wages, full employment, cheap houses, they were golden years, Australia really was the "lucky country". Along with that came mass immigration, the jobs just seemed to always be there and slowly the amount of immigrants increased and the number of countries widened. Slowly but steadily the white Australia policy was dismantled, there was little discussion outside of Parliament. the people were never asked their opinion it was told to them. The remarkable thing was that no matter what the immigration policy Australia had it was endorsed by both the Left and the Right, hardly any disagreement was heard on the issue. Political rhetoric was different but they mostly voted the same way on this issue when it mattered in the Parliament.

In 1973 the most left wing Government in Australia's federal history was elected into office and it ended what remained of the white Australia policy. From now on Australia's immigration policy would be decided by things other than race or ethnicity. This same Government also introduced the policy of multiculturalism. This was highly controversial and was attacked for decades, but again, in the Parliament were it mattered, the Left and the Right voted together. To show how controversial it was there were inquiries nearly every year for two decades on exactly what multiculturalism meant, the result was always to say it was not going to change Australia's culture (English language, the rule of law, the Constitutional Monarchy) but that it existed to help immigrants keep some of their culture alive with limited Government help. If that was really the policy it would not have been nor would it remain so controversial.

Wednesday, 15 May 2013

Normally
when I write I write in broad terms, to express the universal nature of the
topic I am writing about. But here I am going to depart, at least at first from
my normal format. I am going to use Australia’s experience to make a wider
point about multiculturalism and mass immigration. At first for those of my readers
who are not Australian it might appear indulgent I hope it isn’t and that you
get some insight into the topic from my little history lesson.

In 1901
Australia became independent from Britain although we remained a very proud
member of the British Empire. In that year immigration passed from being a responsibility
of the 6 different colonies that made up Australia to the new Government of the
Commonwealth of Australia. One of the first acts of the new Parliament was to
pass the Immigration Restriction Act 1901, which is often called the white
Australia policy. It gave a dictation test of no less than 50 words in any
European language as the test of whether a person could enter Australia, in
reality it was given only to people the Government didn’t want in the country,
the two main reasons were race or political activity.

In 1901 about
1% of the population were Australian Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders the
indigenous peoples of Australia. About 1% were Chinese, Jewish, Afghan or other
non British peoples (including white Europeans and Americans) and the remaining
98% were of British origin, either born in the British Isles or in Australia
from British stock. Australia was one of the most homogeneous countries on Earth,
with most immigration coming from the British Isles.

While
immigration was very restrictive it wasn’t totally exclusive, if a person was
only going to live in Australia for a certain period of time they were normally
allowed in. While immigration from Japan was very restrictive, Japanese people
lived in Australia in their thousands, in fact the Government allowed Japanese
companies to decide on the number of people, their character and the length of their
stay. Many stayed for years and some stayed in Australia permanently, the
Government was happy for the odd exception what they were not happy about was
large numbers of immigrants.

The people of Australia believed overwhelmingly in the white Australia policy and so did the political parties of both the Left and the Right. Within Australia the policy was mostly uncontroversial, but not internationally. But before World War II no Australian Government really cared much about what foreign Governments thought. It was World War II that was to change forever Australia's immigration policy. During the war Australia came under direct threat of invasion, something that had not happened since white settlement. The Government and people were shocked that our military ability was so weak, that was mostly the effect of decades of neglect. But the population was only 8 million in 1945 and the Government decided that Australia needed a bigger population to defend it in time of any future war or threat of invasion. The policy was announced to the Australian people as "Populate or Perish". If we did not have the population to defend the nation then it would perish. The shock of war made many agree that this was needed.

Tuesday, 14 May 2013

The Second Month (12th April -14th May)
Well it's been two months since I started Upon Hope and I thought many of you might find a new article on how the blog is going of interest. Many of you found my article The First Month of interest and it will also allow me to explain some of the goings on behind the scene, nothing outrageous but interesting non the less.

The blog keeps growing which I'm happy about, the worst day this month was the 25th of April when only 5 visitors had a look and the best day was the 1st of May, again two days after Mr. Mark Richardson let his readers know some of what I have been up to here, that day I received 140 visitors. Making it my best day ever, it fell back again but is still higher than it was, I'm now averaging about 30-35 visitors a day. In short both days were extremes, in fact the 25th of April was the only day below 10 visitors, which is low in it's self.

My postings have been in burst's I seem to get great ideas all at once and when they are written and posted my mind needs a rest to think things over. I've come to realise that forcing it doesn't get the best results. Currently I am working on a few ideas to move things along here, while I am happy with what I have written I plan to change the direction I'm heading this month. I don't want to reveal too much now or to give a date but once I've put my ideas in place you'll be the first to know. My only clue is Conservative Future.

Last month I included a chart showing the top 10 countries in the world viewing my blog and the numbers of visitors from those countries, well this month I'm showing you two to compare, first last month and secondly the month before that.

April-May

Australia

367

United States

266

Russia

98

United Kingdom

97

Germany

76

Romania

27

Bulgaria

25

Canada

23

South Korea

14

Indonesia

11

March - April

Australia

299

United States

264

Germany

75

Canada

37

Bulgaria

26

United Kingdom

23

New Zealand

16

South Korea

13

Russia

7

Indonesia

6

You can see a number of things have remained the same, Australia and the United States are still my two biggest readers. Australia has increased in size which I'm very happy about. Interestingly a number of countries have nearly the exact same readership numbers the United States, Germany, Bulgaria and South Korea.

Russia and the United Kingdom have jumped up very high, Russia has grown steadily over the month. The United Kingdom turned up after the plug on Oz Conservative, or else it's an amazing coincidence.

Canada has done the same this month as last month, they jumped on board quickly and then jumped off again quickly. Indonesia went up in numbers but has remained at 11 for about two weeks now.

New Zealand has dropped off the top 10 but I still get visitors from there, it's just not steady.

Finally there is Romania who turned up with the United Kingdom, it was high very early and since then has had smaller but steady numbers turning up.

I have also had visitors from Ireland, France, the Netherlands, Belarus, Turkey, China, Angola, South Africa and Brazil.

To all my readers no matter where in the world you are I say thank you for spending your time reading my writing and I am always interested to hear any thoughts you might have on the subjects I write about.

Monday, 13 May 2013

Most of us have experienced
loneliness, having no partner, leaving home, being away from friends. Some have
a much harder life were they find it hard to make friends or connect with other
people. Mental illness or personality disorders can of course contribute to
this as can shyness or gruffness to give just two examples. But for the vast
majority of people loneliness occurs at two times in their life.

It occurs when
they are young, when they develop an interest in the opposite sex and when they
have not learnt the social skills and lack the confidence to deal with the
opposite sex. At the same time they are trying to work out their own place in
the world, a place where they fit in. It is not an easy time and it leads to
much angst and worry. But for most people this ends and life gets better as
they learn that the things they worried about either weren’t important or for
the most part worked themselves out.

The other time is in old age, as people
get older they are not as interested in making new connections with others as
they once were. For some that starts in middle age and for others at a very
advanced age. The result is that the circle of friends that one once had diminishes
as old friends die and non replace them. The close connection people have with
their family is also stretched as children and grandchildren have their own
lifes and interests. Ill health, lack of energy and the mind tricks that are a
part of growing old all contribute to this sad state. And it is a sad state,
for both young and old, but the saddest part is for the vast majority of us it
is normal.

But
loneliness in young adulthood and in middle age is less so. Putting aside the
issues that I talked about above that can stop people connecting with others. This
is the time in which most people are in good health with an eagerness to
connect to a partner. But we see all around us a world in which people who are
in the prime of life are lonely. Not for a short time or because of some
unfortunate circumstance, but in what seems a permanent state of affairs. The
most worrying aspect is that it seems to affect every social class and both
sexes. You yourself may be lonely, I bet that you know someone who is. Someone
who in theory is in the prime of life, with quirks but nothing seriously wrong
with them, in other words a perfectly normal person.

Why is loneliness such a
large factor in modern life?

There are
four main areas concerning why loneliness is such a big issue when it wasn’t in
the past. 1) Economic 2) Societal 3) Perspective and 4) Personal

The economic
reasons are many, the lack of jobs and stable employment, the two wage household,
the price of housing as well as the cost of living which ties up so much of a
person’s income. Long working hours sure don’t help as those with jobs find
they must put in long hours while others remain unemployed. Here we can see the
long term effects of inflation, most of which took place decades ago but we
still pay the price even though inflation is quite low. (How long it remains
low we will have to see)

The societal
reasons are also many, the push for female employment at the expense of male
employment, the push to promote women instead of men, the belief that marriage
isn’t important, that children do not need mothers and fathers (single
parenthood), that sex is about fun…why aren’t you having fun. Divorce is seen by
many as a solution to their problems instead of as the start of a whole new
series of problems. When a woman earns more than a man most women aren’t
interested in that man. Here we see women cheating themselves by seeking greater
wages. Of course I must point out in their defence, who is telling them today
that it will have such a high price, practically no one.

Perspective
reasons, we are given a constant and false idea about what is normal and
achievable. For example our media(TV, movies) portrays single people as being
able to get dates if they so choose, so if you are single you must be choosing
not to date. We are encouraged to view men and women as interchangeable even
though neither men or women find the result very attractive. We are also
presented with the idea that we can date anyone we like as we have infinite
possibilities and the only reason we don’t date who ever we like is because we
lack a certain quality, money or attractiveness for example. Something entirely
personal that only some type of self- improvement can solve. We are not presented
with reality but with a distortion, one that has us seeing ourselves and others
in a warped way. We find it hard to accurately view society as it is constantly
distorted and we begin to distrust our own eyes and experience.

Personal
reasons, we change as we get older and what we found easy when young is much
harder when you get older. For those who earn good money it is a case of
believing that only the best will do and that you can be as picky as you like
because the options are unlimited. For men it can be hard to settle down as it
seems that the good times will never end. For women the criteria for a partner
is longer not shorter because of her earning ability, he must at least match her
wage or have the potential to, he must also be tall, a little older and a few
random qualities thrown in. Near enough is rarely good enough.

For those who
work but find it harder to make ends meet, it can be hard to justify to
yourself that the future exists when your circumstance forces you to take each
day at a time. How do you pay to go out, date or have a serious relationship
when paying the bills is so hard. In todays social environment when it can
often seem as if being a brain surgeon is the only acceptable occupation to
some people. It can be hard to tell people you work in a normal everyday job
that doesn’t have any glamour or prestige attached to it. For those in very low
paying jobs, casual jobs or who are unemployed or a combination of each during
the course of a year, as well as students. All of the financial problems exist
as well as a loss of confidence, how do you tell people your life circumstance
when you yourself are so unhappy with it. You can lie but the reality is that
unless your very good at lying it is not a long term strategy. The lack of
success becomes it’s own problem as it can reinforce the negative attitudes and
opinions that start to form.

As the traditional family is eroded so we have the results and one of those of loneliness. It should come as no real surprise that at every level social stability and cohesion is being discouraged and therefore is being lost. The traditional family is still strong, it is still the base on which the entire structure sits and that is why Right and Left Liberalism continues to attack it. They want us all to be autonomous individuals and those who are lonely, they like to believe, are making a conscious choice to be that way. Liberals see it as validation of their belief.

While we see a large hole, a hole that just keeps getting bigger, that is not what Liberals see. Their lack of ability to see the future effects of their policies mean that things will only continue to get worse as they have no desire or interest in fixing a problem they cannot even see. In a world of autonomous individuals each failure is not a failure of the system but a failure of the individual. What can Liberals do as individuals or as a movement do to help people who are so foolish. If they were smart they would be successful, their lack of success just proves that they deserve their fate.

Liberals believe themselves to be the enlightened chosen people and those who aren't "smart" enough to survive in their world can go to hell.....and they don't even have to die to get there now.

Wednesday, 8 May 2013

I live in a house, it helps keep me warm and
keeps the wind, the rain and the sun away from me. It protects my body from the
effects of the weather and it protects the things I own as well. It is a marvelous
creation, it is not pretty but nor is it ugly, it is my place, my rightful
place, it is my home. That means to you and everyone else it is just a house
like everyone elses but to me it is much more. A home is a house that has a
soul, a soul given to it by the people who live there. Not a supernatural soul,
it isn’t alive it is a place of warmth and protection, a place of comfort and a
shelter. It is a port in a world that seem, at times as if it is all storms. A
home can be rented, mortgaged or owned out right, it’s financial status isn’t
as important as the relationships that exist within. It shocks me how often
people treat their home as just a house. A house is just an object, no
different to a car or a computer. It can be built, bought, sold, rented and
discarded. A house can be a “machine for living”or an investment. What does
either have to do with a home! I watch the news and see people talking about
how good it is that houses cost more, that they will make more money from
something that hasn’t changed. Something that they didn’t build nor work on,
that their only contact with will be to sell it on. I have a friend who bought
a house and a few years later sold it for more money, he said to me “Isn’t it
great!”, I replied “no”, he replied “your mad”. A while later he said to me “I
cannot believe how expensive houses are!”. Yes when your house sells for more
it’s not the only house on the market. Nearly all houses go up in price. What
are the effects of prices going up? They help two incomes buy houses and
discriminate against families with one wage earner. They push women and mothers
into paid work. They push the birth rate down as people question whether they
can afford a larger family. They help marriage breakdown as financial pressures
persist. They help push the banks into big profits. Money spent on houses is
money wasted on houses. Money spent on financing houses cannot be used to finance
others areas of the economy and unlike other areas of the economy, houses only
create inflation not wealth. There is a
proper market for houses but we do not live in such a market, we live in a
market that believes more is better, that debt is good and that houses are just
investments. I do not support such an idea, I do not support houses I support
homes and the more we can do to protect homes the better off we will all be.Upon Hope - A conservative Future

Tuesday, 7 May 2013

Unemployment
When young people leave secondary school there are three options available to them.

1. Enter the workforce

2. Go on to higher education (normally University)

3. Join the unemployment queue

For many young people university is an attempt to avoid unemployment, it keeps large numbers distracted and helps keep their parents happy. It also helps the Government hide the fact that the jobs these people should have simply don't exist. For the unemployed the same issue exists, the jobs they should have also don't exist.

The Government and those high up in the economy treat unemployment as an individual failing, according to them only the lazy and/or stupid are unemployed. They ask how can Government or those running the economy be held responsible for such foolish people!

In fact they, through the goodness of their heart, support the unemployed, they would be destitute without their compassion. Once again we have those responsible for creating the system denying that they have anything to do with it.

It isn't just happenstance that allows free-trade to exist, it is their policy.

It isn't just happenstance that allows mass immigration to exist, it is their policy.

It isn't just happenstance that favours the financial economy over the real economy, it is their policy.

Each one of these is bad for the real economy, in combination these are all job killers. Full employment is seen as bad for the financial economy, so the unemployed are sacrificed upon the altar of Liberal economic theories. Theories designed to promote the financial economy and those who benefit from such an economy.

Apart from the financial economy there are no winners only losers. For the unemployed it is hard to do anything with little or no money, it stops the creation of families and the creation of skills and confidence as well as wealth. For the unemployed life stops.

It also costs those employed as they must support this dysfunctional system with higher taxes as well as having to live with the resultant social problems. The employed also have the constant fear that unemployment awaits them. Of course the unemployed also have to live with these social problems.

Finally the Government loses credibility and respect, it costs money better spent on other things (in the long term, not the short) and decreases tax revenue. A double blow to it's finances.

The problem isn't that unemployment exists, the problem is that it is so chronic, so constant. The problem is that it effects one portion of society to the benefit of another. The problem is that the unemployed can be without work for year after year. The problem is that it is treated as a temporary problem, 40 years after it became a chronic problem.

The Government needs to put the financial economy in it's correct position, not above the real economy but as a valued aid to the real economy. The financial economy needs to be the value added portion of the real economy.

Sunday, 5 May 2013

Updates
I have just corrected Oz Conservatives address and added 3 other Traditional Conservative websites to my list of sites. If you've got the time check them out.

I have also changed the comments so you should be able to comment without needing to sign up. In the worlds of a great Philosopher "A mans got to know his limitations" that great Philosopher was of course Dirty Harry, well I know mine and it's anything technical so if that doesn't prove to be the case I'll see if I can do it better next time.

Saturday, 4 May 2013

Debt: The Options
Recently I was talking to a fellow Conservative about debt and he said that Austerity (in Europe) should end as it was killing the economy. I disagreed and to understand why we must look at the options available as well as the consequences.

There are three general options available to Governments when they get themselves into debt and they decide to do something about it.

1. They can honour the debt and pay

2. They can print money and try to devalue the debt using inflation

3. They can repudiate the debt and default

Each has it's own results

1. Paying the debt means financial sacrifice, expenditure must be cut, revenue (meaning tax) should be increased. Maybe worst of all future plans must be curtailed or even scrapped all together. Just to rub salt into the wound it continues for year after year.

2. Another method is to devalue the debt, the current term for it is "Quantitative Easing", it basically means printing more money than the economy needs in an effort to inflate the currency. To make it worth less tomorrow than it was yesterday even though the face value remains the same. If for example the Government owe's $100 million and they inflate the currency and it is now worth $90 million, the Government saved itself $10 million. Here is a trick exclusively available to Governments.

3. Finally they can default on the debt and start with a fresh slate. They can start spending money in a manner that both the Government and the voters find attractive.

Of course each of these in turn has consequences

1. Once a serious effort has been made to pay the debt, the debt will stabilise and then go down. The only time this does not apply is if further increased borrowing occurs. It is slow and painful but it works and allows the Governments credit rating to remain in tack, meaning that further credit will be available if needed at a reasonable price. Regular payments also increase the likely hood that the loan can be renegotiated after all few creditors want to kill the paying customer.

2. Inflation is a tax on the peoples standard of living. It is insidious as it is invisible for along time, but when it hits it hits hard. It hits the poor and those on tight budgets first, whether they be people or businesses. It destroys businesses and drives homebuyer's from their homes. If inflation is 10%, $100 now has the purchasing power of $90. Any money in the bank makes interest and loses it value, all at the same time.

3. Defaulting on the debt seems the best option and it is as long as the Government never wants or needs to borrow money again. The reality is that most Governments borrow money every day, for the simple reason that has bills it simply must pay, every day without fail, payroll, pensions, interest loans are just three of many items. But the bulk of it's revenue doesn't come in every day so to tide themselves over they borrow, just as many businesses do. But once a loan is defaulted you have announced to the world just how bad your financial position is. While they may have thought it was bad the Government has just informed them that it is so bad they have stopped paying their bills. The next question is what other bills will they stop paying?

Pensions!

Wages!

And why should people continue to pay their debts to the Government (or anyone) when it has stopped paying it's own debt. The idea that the Government starts off with a clean new slate is a mirage, what it ends up with is little credibility and a bad credit rating. As well as a whole series of problems of it's own making.

The bad news is that there is no easy way out of debt. In short debt is bad and only by rejecting debt as an economic policy can this problem be solved.

Thursday, 2 May 2013

Debt is King IIIn
the 1880’s Governments around the world were offered very generous credit and
many took the offer. They believed something that Liberalism pushes all the
time, the old ways are dead we live in a new paradigm now. It lead to a credit
crash and a Depression and a commitment to not borrow so much again. Which
lasted until the First World War when access to massive amounts of money were
needed. The war changed how debt was used by Governments. Many wanted to return
to a mostly debt free Government after the war debt was paid off but it was so
large that it could not be paid back for decades. That gave an opening to those
who wanted to fund more socialist policies, to use the growth in Government to
help the poor. What was a little more debt as the Government already had so
much. Then a little more and then a little more. When the Great Depression hit
in 1929 Governments tried not to increase debt but the economy was so badly
damaged that the normal efforts didn’t work. Keynes the British economist came
up with a theory that Governments were already using, if private enterprise
cannot or will not run the economy than Government should run the economy. Debt
should be used to keep the economy running, after all the Government has the
taxpayer behind it so in theory it has an unlimited ability to pay back any
debt. We all live, no matter where we live with the consequences of those
decisions. We live in an age where many believe that debt means free money,
were the ability to pay back debt is seen as optional. The results are there
for all to see in Europe and the United States, both will end badly because the
underlying cause of the debt is being ignored. No person, family, business or
Government can live beyond it’s mean, it is only a matter of time until the
lender wants his money back. Liberalism believes in a world were money is free,
but free money can be very expensive indeed.Upon Hope Blog - A Conservative Future

Wednesday, 1 May 2013

Recently I was saving money to attend a friends
wedding overseas, it wasn’t cheap and I had to make sacrifices to be able to
afford my trip. My bank disagreed, they were willing to guarantee me a loan
worth 4 times what I had ever had in my account without me even asking for it.
They sure didn’t believe I needed to make any sacrifices, this 4 years after
the Global Financial Crisis, they still wanted to throw money in my direction,
even though I have never had anywhere near that amount in my account. Why would
a bank be so reckless? Because part of Economic Liberalism is the belief in
progress, it may even be the defining belief within Liberalism. Any set back is
only a stumble because the march of progress is relentless, it cannot be
stopped it is simply unstoppable. Allied to this belief is the idea that money
should flow freely, meaning that credit (loans) should be generous. A credit
generous economy is generally a growing economy, companies can take risks
because they can afford to take risks. That then leads on to another belief
that if credit should be generous, debt is necessary, even good for the
economy. If that is accepted than what should be a responsible level of debt? It seems that this is a slippery slope and we so often end up with the idea
that debt can be unlimited. It turns out that economics and Human nature has
something to say in this regard, because not everyone pays back the credit
extended to them. This means that instead of credit paying for more credit
which in turns pays for more credit, riskier credit is extended. Credit such as
that offered to me. Upon Hope Blog - A Conservative Future